Your opinions: Minimum phaser setting to affect a stormtrooper?

[WATCH-MAN]

Look, you two. There's an idea in science and philosophy called the principle of parsimony, usually called 'Occam's Razor' which you'll probably have heard of but clearly didn't fully comprehend. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the simplest explanation is usually the best. Let's see how this principle plays out in the two questions at hand.

To quote Mike Wong: "it's a bit like righteousness: everybody claims it's on his side."

Are Star Wars and Star Trek humans the same? I hypothesize that they are. As we can't actually run a full genetic analysis on representative samples from each, we look at the visual evidence provided. Barring differing local flavors of mysticism and accounting for standard species variation, the two populations look the same, act the same, and are capable of the same sorts of things.

To assume that both species are related requires that somehow the homo sapiens sapiens that evolved round about 200.000 years ago on Earth and has not developed yet the means for intergalactic travel has reached a long time ago a galaxy far far away.

To assume a convergent evolution - something that is known to science - does not require such implausible feat. A convergent evolution explains similar appearance and even similar behaviour.

Are turbolasers lasers? I hypothesize they are not. Here we actually can do proper scientific tests: we know what lasers are, and we know that glowing slower-than-light energy bolts isn't it. They are not lasers. This isn't an opinion or a theory, they are by definition not lasers (because a real laser emits a lightspeed invisible beam, literally the opposite of what turbolasers do), regardless of the name.

Who has ever claimed that the weapons that are called turbolasers are the same as "light amplified by stimulated emission of radiation"?

I haven't claimed such thing.

I also haven't claimed that, when Picard said that "Lasers can't even penetrate [their] navigation shields" he talked about weapons based on "light amplified by stimulated emission of radiation".

For question 1, it makes sense to go with the parsimonious explanation, i.e. both humans are the same. We can't do the tests required to know for certain, but there's no reason to suspect that there's any difference.

There is every reason as no plausible way is known how homo sapiens sapiens that evolved round about 200.000 years ago on Earth and has not developed the means for intergalactic travel yet has reached a long time ago a galaxy far far away.

According to all we know, what you think is the easiest explanation is an impossibility.

For question 2, the parsimonious explanation (both universes mean the same thing by 'laser') is clearly not true.

Agreed. That is exactly what I argued.

When Picard said that "Lasers can't even penetrate [their] navigation shields" he did not talked about weapons based on "light amplified by stimulated emission of radiation" but whatever they are calling lasers.

Nope, sorry, that's not how things work. Your claim is that Star Wars humans and Star Trek humans are equal. This is a positive claim. There is not, as far as I'm aware, any evidence that it's true. If you disagree, prove it.

I submit twenty movies and decades of TV episodes in which Star Wars and Star Trek humans look, move, and act the same. What have you got? I'm not doing your work for you, if there's a reason not to accept the straightforward explanation, find it.

Only because something looks or behaves similar, does not mean it's the same.

Please provide an explanation how homo sapiens sapiens that evolved round about 200.000 years ago on Earth and has not developed the means for intergalactic travel yet could have reached a long time ago a galaxy far far away.

Please provide an explanation why there are so many humanoid species that look like humans - although they are not related to the homo sapiens sapiens (Aldeans, Angosians, Ardanans, Argelians, Ba'ku, Bandi, Beta III natives, Betazoids, Brekkians, Capellans, Deltans, Dinaali, Dosi, Edo, Ekosians, El-Aurian, Elasians, Gideons, Halanans, Iotians, Ligonians, Mari, Nyrians, Scalosians, Sikarians, Serosians, Takarians, Tarellians, Teplans, Varro, Vori, Wadi, Yaderans and Zeons)

Only because you can't see differences does not mean that there are no differences.

Only because something looks similar or even alike does not mean it is alike.

Please provide evidence that phasers routinely fail to penetrate packing crates.

And then please provide evidence that these packing crates are less durable than stormtrooper armor.

I submit TNG "The Vengeance Factor" and any number of firefights in DS9. This has been done to death here and on the main site; if you disagree with those arguments, say why. We can't test the durability of the crates or of stormtrooper armor because we haven't seen both get hit by something we can quantify. That's my whole point; phasers have effects dependent on the target material. It's not a question of raw firepower because phasers don't work by direct energy transfer.

If it has be done to death here, you won't have problems with providing evidence.

To simply call the name of a episode - without even describing what exactly happened - or to refer to "any number of firefights in DS9" is no argument with which I could disagree.

But I can refer to the DS9 episode "Who Mourns for Morn?" in which Quark hides in a packing crate and weapons fire goes through it like a hot knife through butter.

Nobody's saying turbolasers aren't called lasers.

Strawman.

Then make your argument more clearly. What are you getting at here?

Please take a little more care when reading what I'm writing - and do not contradict me only because you want to contradict me.

and that therefore you can't just go 'well, in Star Trek lasers are obsolete' as an argument.

Why?

Are you... serious? A proper laser has nothing to do with a turbolaser. They are not remotely comparable. The usefulness of one has no bearing on the usefulness of the other, even if 'all lasers are completely useless against Star Trek ships' wasn't a logical fallacy. Which it is.

See, that's exactly what I meant: You admit to not even know what my argument is and what I' getting at.

But you have to have an opinion to things you do not understand.

And now you are repeating only what I have already argued: What is called laser in Star Wars is not a weapon based on light amplified by stimulated emission of radiation.

it's literally the same argument as saying 'well, on Earth black-powder cannon were in use centuries ago, therefore the US Navy can't hit anything farther away than a mile or two.'

Why is it "literally the same argument"?

Because the problem with both is that they draw inaccurate conclusions from outdated data. It's a loose literalism at best, I'll grant,

To drawing inaccurate conclusions from outdated data does not make two arguments "literally the same".

... but the point remains valid.

Which point?

Why is it that nobody but you has this much trouble with not making semantics arguments in foreign languages?

Maybe because I'm a special homo sapiens sapiens.

[WATCH-MAN]

Watch-man do you know why the princible of "innocent until proven guilty" exist in western legal procidings? I yes this is relevant to this discussion and I'll exaplain why once you're replied to that question.

Of course I know the principle "presumption of innocence".

[Lord Revan]

Watch-man do you know why the princible of "innocent until proven guilty" exist in western legal procidings? I yes this is relevant to this discussion and I'll exaplain why once you're replied to that question.

Of course I know the principle "presumption of innocence".

Then answer the question. I didn't ask do you know the principle, I asked do you know why it exists.

[WATCH-MAN]

This has happened several times in the past. WATCH-MAN has no normal concept of "burden of proof."

I have.

The problem is that my concept of "burden of proof" seems to be different from your concept.

If e.g. Esquire claims that what appears to be human in Star Wars are homo sapiens sapiens, I demand that he provides evidence and and a plausible explanation how homo sapiens sapiens that evolved round about 200.000 years ago on Earth and has not developed the means for intergalactic travel yet has reached a long time ago a galaxy far far away.

Instead, he appears to believe it's a thing that happens to other people.

Not really.

If I'd were to make such a claim, I'd provide evidence.

But you are herewith asked to show a claim I have made that I haven't provided evidence for.

But please do not claim that I'm claiming something only because I demand evidence. Demanding evidence for a claim does not mean that one claims the opposite of the disputed claim.

Every time we have a discussion involving Wars or Trek, he turns it into this weirdly formatted mass of quote spaghetti where his only debating tactics:

Everytime?

1) To nitpick and misunderstand other people's words, wasting time and making himself look like an utter idiot.

Eyerytime?

2) To demand evidence for blindingly obvious claims, especially claims that are strongly supported by Occam's Razor.

Please provide evidence that this happens everytime.

3) To treat his own randomly generated opinion as some kind of default hypothesis that everyone else has to run around in circles trying to disprove.

Please provide evidence that I have everytime a "randomly generated opinion".

He works so hard at it that it's hard to imagine him being a troll, but if he's not, then he's got one of the most bizarre combinations of English-language illiteracy and mutant anti-logic that I have ever seen outside of the Time Cube website.

I feel the same reading what you are writing.

And sometimes I simply want to have fun and poke in the hornets' nest - especially if some of you are demanding evidence like a creationist demands more and more evidence and claims, if it is not possible to provide more missing links, that the whole evolutionary theory isn't proven.

I't funny to watch how illogical some of you become - especially when you fail to provide evidence for your claims - and then argue that these are "blindingly obvious claims" and don't need any evidence.

It's funny to imagine the froth you surly have in your mouth after you read that.

[WATCH-MAN]

Watch-man do you know why the princible of "innocent until proven guilty" exist in western legal procidings? I yes this is relevant to this discussion and I'll exaplain why once you're replied to that question.

Of course I know the principle "presumption of innocence".

Then answer the question. I didn't ask do you know the principle, I asked do you know why it exists.

Sorry, I didn't read the "why" in your question.

The presumption of innocence exists simply because society has decided that this is fair - as in a fair trial.

[Simon_Jester]

This has happened several times in the past. WATCH-MAN has no normal concept of "burden of proof."

I have.

The problem is that my concept of "burden of proof" seems to be different from your concept.

Yes. That's what I said. Specifically, that is what I said by the way I used the word 'normal.'

Either learn to read the English language at a college level, or stop pretending to fully understand what is said by people who speak the English language at a college level.

Every time we have a discussion involving Wars or Trek, he turns it into this weirdly formatted mass of quote spaghetti where his only debating tactics:

Everytime?

1) To nitpick and misunderstand other people's words, wasting time and making himself look like an utter idiot.

Eyerytime?

2) To demand evidence for blindingly obvious claims, especially claims that are strongly supported by Occam's Razor.

Please provide evidence that this happens everytime.

3) To treat his own randomly generated opinion as some kind of default hypothesis that everyone else has to run around in circles trying to disprove.

Please provide evidence that I have everytime a "randomly generated opinion".

I believe your own actions have adequately proved my case by the standards of a reasonable bystander. Indeed, in your attempt to disprove my objection to your debating style, you have provided a beautiful example of why your debating style is objectionable.

I't funny to watch how illogical some of you become - especially when you fail to provide evidence for your claims - and then argue that these are "blindingly obvious claims" and don't need any evidence.

It's funny to imagine the froth you surly have in your mouth after you read that.

Oh, so you ARE trolling when you stand out in a rainstorm and demand proof that water is wet. And here I merely thought that you were a lunatic.

Well, that explains your objectionable debating style and pretended illiteracy quite well. Bye!

[darthy2]

You are, of course, welcome to demonstrate that a fifteen-pound impact to the chest won't knock down an average human. I await your calculations.

We're also not talking about average humans are we. These are supposed to be soldiers that train all the time. It would be more accurate to demonstrate that a 15 pound impact to the chest won't knock down an above average human. Examples of above average humans are augments which I mentioned in previous posts can withstand impacts like that.

I still think the burden of proof is on you to compare humans here to humans in star wars. I don't accept the premise even if you think it's reasonable. Without proof, I see no reason to accept that. People were all over me for mentioning the Gorn's ability to absorb a rock and comparing that to Stormtroopers. In that one episode the Gorn and Human looked similar enough. Plus there's a physics factor. The mass of lifeforms in the star wars galaxy may be larger because of the midichlorians in all living things. With an average of 2500 midichlorians per cell with trillions of cells on someone's body we're talking Quadrillions of midichlorians adding to the humans mass over there. The midichlorians need nourishment too maybe they take away energy from Stormtroopers making them easier to fall over.

[Lord Revan]

Of course I know the principle "presumption of innocence".

Then answer the question. I didn't ask do you know the principle, I asked do you know why it exists.

Sorry, I didn't read the "why" in your question.

The presumption of innocence exists simply because society has decided that this is fair - as in a fair trial.

It's not that simple, or more accurately there's a good reason society has decided so. There's rather common situations where it's impossible to prove innocense without reasonble dout, say for example to accused claimed to be sleeping alone at his/her home, most cases there's no realistic way to prove this at trial. hence if we want to be fair we must assume that the accused is telling the thruth unless the procecution can prove otherwise.

Now this mean that defense attorney can nitpick the procecution's claims about how things went to his hearts content without having to prove their claims or even make a claim how things went (besides the claim of "not guilty" or "guilty" at the start of the trial). recognize anything there?

However in most debates nitpicking your opponents claims isn't enough, you must also make a counterclaim.

[Batman]

You are, of course, welcome to demonstrate that a fifteen-pound impact to the chest won't knock down an average human. I await your calculations.

We're also not talking about average humans are we. These are supposed to be soldiers that train all the time.

Which doesn't get them all that much advantage over 'average' humans.

It would be more accurate to demonstrate that a 15 pound impact to the chest won't knock down an above average human. Examples of above average humans are augments which I mentioned in previous posts can withstand impacts like that.

Wrong. Augments aren't above 'average', they're above 'humanly possible'. You're essentially using Captain America as the baseline for what humans can do.

I still think the burden of proof is on you to compare humans here to humans in star wars.

And you're still wrong.

I don't accept the premise even if you think it's reasonable. Without proof, I see no reason to accept that.

The entirety of Trek and Wars. But you're welcome to show evidence that humans AREN'T essentially the same.

People were all over me for mentioning the Gorn's ability to absorb a rock and comparing that to Stormtroopers. In that one episode the Gorn and Human looked similar enough.

The hell they did. One was Kirk, the other was a roughly human-sized lizard. Just because it's roughly human-sized doesn't mean it's roughly human in performance or resiliance. But don't take my word for it. Go fight a chimpanzee. The guy's a lot smaller than you, it should be a pushover, right?

Plus there's a physics factor. The mass of lifeforms in the star wars galaxy may be larger because of the midichlorians in all living things. With an average of 2500 midichlorians per cell with trillions of cells on someone's body we're talking Quadrillions of midichlorians adding to the humans mass over there. The midichlorians need nourishment too maybe they take away energy from Stormtroopers making them easier to fall over.

Okay, that's garbage even by Trektard standards. And that's saying something.

[Esquire]

Simon and Batman said everything I would have; I'll just close with this:

Anytime you find yourself alone on one side of an argument, with a bunch of reasonably well-informed people on the other side, it might be a good idea to reconsider your position.

[darthy2]

Simon and Batman said everything I would have; I'll just close with this:

Anytime you find yourself alone on one side of an argument, with a bunch of reasonably well-informed people on the other side, it might be a good idea to reconsider your position.

Sorry to disturb your tranquility but everyone outside of this site knows this place is heavily bias against star trek.

Which doesn't get them all that much advantage over 'average' humans.

Why not?

Wrong. Augments aren't above 'average', they're above 'humanly possible'. You're essentially using Captain America as the baseline for what humans can do.

They're not above "humanly possible" if they're human themselves.

And you're still wrong.

Actually you are. I don't accept the premise that humans in our own galaxy can be accurately compared to humans in star wars. I don't deny it either though. I asked for proof and I'm not getting it. That's your failure not mine.

The entirety of Trek and Wars. But you're welcome to show evidence that humans AREN'T essentially the same.

I gave you one example how they aren't the same. There's no evidence that midichlorians exist in our universe. Just because a race looks like our race does not mean they can be accurately compared as if they are the same. Do you know their anatomy?

The hell they did. One was Kirk, the other was a roughly human-sized lizard. Just because it's roughly human-sized doesn't mean it's roughly human in performance or resiliance. But don't take my word for it. Go fight a chimpanzee. The guy's a lot smaller than you, it should be a pushover, right?

It looked like a humanoid with a lizard head. If you're that objectionable with comparing a gorn to a human, then you should agree that a human in our galaxy cannot be compared to a human in the star wars universe. If you were to be logically consistent.

Okay, that's garbage even by Trektard standards. And that's saying something.

Then you should have no problem really addressing it.

[WATCH-MAN]

Simon and Batman said everything I would have; I'll just close with this:

Anytime you find yourself alone on one side of an argument, with a bunch of reasonably well-informed people on the other side, it might be a good idea to reconsider your position.

As the reasonably well-informed people who claimed that there is an omnipotent deity?

Or the reasonably well-informed people who claimed that the world was created within six days by this omnipotent deity?

Or the reasonably well-informed people who claimed that all species were created by this omnipotent deity?

Or the reasonably well-informed people who claimed that Earth is the middle of the universe?

You'd be surprise how many reasonably well-informed people you find in a group of people, who are primarily in this group because they all have the same opinion and thus are finding their own opinion recognised of by every other group member - especially if this group has the tendency to ostracise those who have other opinions.

With that I'm not saying that this has to be the case at SDN. I'm neither saying that this is not the case at SDN.

What I'm saying is that your argument is flawed.

It's an argumentum ad populum or an argument argumentum ad verecundiam combined with circular reasoning.

[Simon_Jester]

The argument is not flawed, you didn't understand it because of your illiteracy.

Re-read the last clause of Esquire's statement you posted. There are two important words in that passage, one of them a basic high-school level word and one even small children should understand. You either ignored those words on purpose, or did not understand them.

[WATCH-MAN]

The argument is not flawed, you didn't understand it because of your illiteracy.

Re-read the last clause of Esquire's statement you posted. There are two important words in that passage, one of them a basic high-school level word and one even small children should understand. You either ignored those words on purpose, or did not understand them.

If you think that it might be a good idea to reconsider your position in the presence of a group whose members have all the same opinion, are reassuring each other, are considering themselves as "reasonably well-informed" and together are all telling you that your opinion is wrong - you probably would reconsider your position in the presence of Christian fundamentalists too.

[Esquire]

They at least offer an argument that we can rationally assess and dismiss on full consideration. The best you seem to be able to do is nitpick.

[Lord Revan]

They at least offer an argument that we can rationally assess and dismiss on full consideration. The best you seem to be able to do is nitpick.

Also the word used is "reconsider" not "change" or "alter", when you reconsider something you take everything new you'd learned into account, but it's still possible to reach the same conclution.

However Watch-man has never shown any indication that he even considers opposing viewpoints, he's so sure about being right all the time that he rejects opposing viewpoints outright without giving them any consideration much less reconsideration. It takes rather large amount of arrogance to play semantics with your secondary language when the other guy is a native speaker, Yet Watch-man does that pretty much everytime rather admit he is wrong.

[Batman]

The argument is not flawed, you didn't understand it because of your illiteracy.
Re-read the last clause of Esquire's statement you posted. There are two important words in that passage, one of them a basic high-school level word and one even small children should understand. You either ignored those words on purpose, or did not understand them.

If you think that it might be a good idea to reconsider your position in the presence of a group whose members have all the same opinion, are reassuring each other, are considering themselves as "reasonably well-informed" and together are all telling you that your opinion is wrong - you probably would reconsider your position in the presence of Christian fundamentalists too.

You're always welcome to PROVE US WRONG. Sometimes, the reason everybody believes water boils at 100°C at sea level is BECAUSE THAT IS CORRECT.

[Esquire]

Please, if we've misinterpreted anything, let us know, providing calculations and showing why the board's default ones are wrong. Otherwise I, at least, am going with the preponderance of evidence.

[WATCH-MAN]

They at least offer an argument that we can rationally assess and dismiss on full consideration. The best you seem to be able to do is nitpick.

Even if the only thing I do here is nitpicking, there isn't enough data for the conclusion that it is the best I'm able to do.

Your shallowness is your problem.

[...] However Watch-man has never shown any indication that he even considers opposing viewpoints, he's so sure about being right all the time that he rejects opposing viewpoints outright without giving them any consideration much less reconsideration. [...]

To be sure about being right, one has to have an opinion.

But if I do not present an opinion - unless the opinion that you fail to prove your opinion - and am merely nitpicking your stupid argumentation, I have no real opinion from which I could be sure that it is right.

As your argumentum ad hominem is nothing more than a stupid argument.

The thing is that I can admit that I do not know something, that I do not know why the species seen in Star Wars looks superficially like the homo sapiens sapiens that developed on Earth round about 200.000 years ago and has not developed the means for interstellar travel yet. I do neither claim that they are the same - nor do I claim that they are not.

But if someone claims that they are the same and elevates this claim to a premise of further conclusions - I demand that he proves this claim.

You're always welcome to PROVE US WRONG.

Like Christian fundamentalists.

They claim God exists and the atheists are welcome to prove that there is no God.

Esquire claims that the species seen in Star Wars, that looks superficially like the homo sapiens sapiens - that developed on Earth round about 200.000 years ago and has not developed the means for interstellar travel yet - are the same - without providing a theory how homo sapiens sapiens could have reached a galaxy far far away a long time ago.

Of course: You could argue that once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.

But that puts into question if there are other possibilities.

And I have argued that there are other possibilities, e.g. convergent evolution. That does not mean, that it has to be convergent evolution. But the fact that it could be convergent evolution shows that there are other possibilities and that the claim that the species seen in Star Wars are the same as the homo sapiens sapiens from Earth, is not the only possible explanation.

Do demand that I disprove the claim of Esquire is insane.

[Esquire]

Since a convergent evolution hypothesis requires massively complex processes to have produced physically identical species widely separated by both time and space, it's actually less likely than almost any other reason one might propose for why we find humans in both galaxies.We don't even have that degree of similarity across continents in real life. Obviously the 'actual' reason is that both series are produced on Earth; in-universe, I suppose I'd go with time-travel and warp shenanigans from ST to SW.

[Lord Revan]

basically the humans in SW pass the "duck test" for the most part and ones that don't are special cases in universe (aka the Jedi).

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck you better have some damn good evidence to prove it's not a duck. By same toke SW humans, look like humans, move like humans and talk like humans, so you better have good evidence to show they're not humans (or aliens that are so close to humans that difference is irrelevant).

[Batman]

You're always welcome to PROVE US WRONG.

Like Christian fundamentalists.
They claim God exists and the atheists are welcome to prove that there is no God.
Esquire claims that the species seen in Star Wars, that looks superficially like the homo sapiens sapiens - that developed on Earth round about 200.000 years ago and has not developed the means for interstellar travel yet - are the same - without providing a theory how homo sapiens sapiens could have reached a galaxy far far away a long time ago.

He doesn't NEED to. All available evidence shows that however it happened, it happened. HOW humans in Wars came to be essentially exactly the same as humans in Trek is irrelevant. Time travel shenanigans, act of Q, Transwarp experiment gone wrong, Trek and Wars humans are essentially identical and can be treated as such until and unless you can show significant differences between the two. Can you?

[WATCH-MAN]

Since a convergent evolution hypothesis requires massively complex processes to have produced physically identical species widely separated by both time and space, it's actually less likely than almost any other reason one might propose for why we find humans in both galaxies.We don't even have that degree of similarity across continents in real life. Obviously the 'actual' reason is that both series are produced on Earth; in-universe, I suppose I'd go with time-travel and warp shenanigans from ST to SW.

The distance in time and space between two species has no bearing in a convergent evolutions probability. Necessary are only similar ecosystems with similar ecological niches in which the species develop analogous structures. With other words: Chances aren't so bad that on similar planets with life you'll find species with analogous structures because what works well and increase the chances of survival and reproduction under certain conditions on one planet works as well under the same conditions on another planet.

This basic consideration is supported by all those sapient species that are no homo sapiens sapiens but are humanoid - all the intelligent, bilaterally symmetrical, bipedal lifeforms in possession of an upright posture, two arms, two legs, hands, feet, one thorax, a neck, and a head with a brain located in it.

Many of them can not be - at a glance - distinguished from homo sapiens sapiens ((Aldeans, Angosians, Ardanans, Argelians, Ba'ku, Bandi, Beta III natives, Betazoids, Brekkians, Capellans, Deltans, Dinaali, Dosi, Edo, Ekosians, El-Aurian, Elasians, Gideons, Halanans, Iotians, Ligonians, Mari, Nyrians, Scalosians, Sikarians, Serosians, Takarians, Tarellians, Teplans, Varro, Vori, Wadi, Yaderans and Zeons)), some of the humanoid species have, when compared, less obvious differences in their appearance (e.g. Trill or Bajorans) and some have more obvious differences in their appearance [e.g. Voth or Tygarian].

But if you claim that "it's actually less likely than" "time-travel and warp shenanigans", I'd like to see your data from which you came to this conclusion.

How likely is it that convergent evolution has created two species that looks so similar that you can't find superficial differences?

How likely is "time-travel and warp shenanigans"?

I do not expect you to calculate the exact probability. The order of magnitude would be enough - as long as the one is higher than the other.

I mean: If you can claim that convergent evolution is "actually less likely than almost any other reason one might propose", you have to back up this claim.

basically the humans in SW pass the "duck test" for the most part and ones that don't are special cases in universe (aka the Jedi).

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck you better have some damn good evidence to prove it's not a duck. By same toke SW humans, look like humans, move like humans and talk like humans, so you better have good evidence to show they're not humans (or aliens that are so close to humans that difference is irrelevant).

The duck-test woks only if you are sure that there is nothing that could be confused with a duck.

As it is possible that convergent evolution has resulted in two species with a superficial similarity, the duck test is circular logic.

The fact that the changeling that impersonated Starfleet personnel looked like Starfleet personnel, walked like Starfleet personnel and talked liked Starfleet personnel does not make it Starfleet personnel. Sometimes something is not what it appears to be.

He doesn't NEED to. All available evidence shows that however it happened, it happened. HOW humans in Wars came to be essentially exactly the same as humans in Trek is irrelevant. Time travel shenanigans, act of Q, Transwarp experiment gone wrong, Trek and Wars humans are essentially identical and can be treated as such until and unless you can show significant differences between the two. Can you?

You are right: If they had the same properties, it is irrelevant if they have them because they have undergone a convergent evolution or are members of the same species. But the question is, if they have the same properties - and this string of the debate came from this question.

I'm the opinion that we do not have enough data to leap to the conclusion that - only because they look superficial similar - they are similar in all other aspects. Their appearance is only one property and I do not really know their anatomy under their skin. I do not know their bio-chemistry.

But I have seen members of the Star Wars species that looks like homo sapiens sapiens from Earth do things that no homo sapiens sapiens could do.

I have seen members of the Star Wars species that looks like homo sapiens sapiens from Earth survive things unharmed that no homo sapiens sapiens could survive at all.

[Esquire]

Point one: the various humanoid 'aliens' one finds in Star Trek are not separate species at all, because interbreeding is possible. Homo galacticis, possibly.

Point two: the human genome is approximately three billion base-pairs long. A difference of only 1.2% gets you a chimpanzee. As evolution is subject to all manner of random environmental factors, claiming that convergent evolution could produce two species with identical physical characteristics is about as silly as claiming that if you flip a coin three billion times, all of them will come up 'heads.'

Point three: the plot of at least three Star Trek movies (IV, Generations, and 09) depend on space-time shenanigans.

[Eternal_Freedom]

You forgot First Contact.